Campaigners ‘Save Loch Lomond’ dress in capes outside park’s HQ

‘Save Loch Lomond’ organisers say they don’t feel they are being listened to as an application to build a resort on Loch Lomond Shores reaches its final days of decision-making.

The planning application first submitted in 2019 has faced criticism over potential issues with traffic management on the busy A82, environmental impacts and its effect on local infrastructure.

If approved, the complex will include 104 holiday lodges, two hotels, a water park and a monorail.

Flamingo Land developers say they have the opportunity to create jobs and support local infrastructure.

READ MORE: Almost 100,000 against Loch Lomond Flamingo Land resort

Four campaigners dressed in dark green cloaks outside the office to mimic the BBC TV game show ‘The Traitors.’

Campaigner Gail McAtear dressed in a dark green cloak (Image: Newsquest) They held signs that read ‘reward’, ‘ideology’, ‘coercion’ and ‘ego.’

One of the hooded ‘traitors’ Gail McAtear says the signs represent their view on Loch Lomond & The Trossachs National Park Authority's (LLTNP) office.

LLTNP is the planning authority in charge of the decision on the application.

She said: “There has been a petition of more than 90,000 people saying we don’t want this. We have said it three times and we are saying it again. We are not going to stop. This is why we have come like this today – to show them that we know who they are and we see them."

Gail added: “It’s a land grab, they are taking our last publicly accessible piece of land that the locals use here. We are fighting for this and we are not going to give up the fight.”

Protestors added that there would be an additional strain on transport routes and the nearest hospital, Vale of Leven, does not have an A&E department.

Balloch and Haldane Community Council (BHCC) representatives were also seen entering the headquarters to have discussions with LLTNP over the application that the community council opposed.

Angela Chisholm, who lives by Loch Lomond, said: “I am here today because I want to protest against the proposals of a Flamingo Land. I don’t think it’ll help the area or the environment, it will spoil the natural beauty of the area.

Helen Ferrie outside Loch Lomond and the Trossachs Park head office (Image: Newsquest) “I don’t see why they need to have it in this area. It's just ridiculous. I am 63 years old and I don’t want to see this spoiled.

“They say it will create a lot of jobs, but people are willing to travel, it doesn’t need to be here.”

Jim Burns, another local campaigner, said: “This development is completely inappropriate. SEPA says this area is a flood risk, if we are all concerned about global warming then why are they considering this?

(Image: Newsquest)

“It should be rejected. The A82 is the only road in and out of this area. If that gets blocked it would be a great difficulty. I went over to Paisley two weeks ago and the tailback to get home was all the way back to the M8.

“That’s without this here. Not to even mention the discussion of the woodland and habitats, this is nonsensical.”

A spokesperson for LLTNP said: “The National Park Authority has not taken a position in support of or against this planning application.

“Unhelpful misinformation circulating about the planning application and process may be contributing to community concerns. These concerns relate to why the National Park Authority would consider this planning application. Under planning law, a planning authority must process and consider and determine every planning application it receives.  

“This planning application is currently at the assessment stage, and all submitted documents, consultee responses and all representations from the public in favour of and objection to the application will be considered as part of that assessment.

"Once the assessment is complete, a report will be published that includes a recommendation to the National Park Authority Board to either approve or refuse the planning application. The final decision will then be taken by the National Park Authority Board at a meeting and hearing held in public.  The date for that meeting has not yet been set.”